|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2016 20:47 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:17 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 08:06 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:50 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 07:41 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why have you three (big J reaps bardtown, alway your three together) been talking in your own own little echo chamber as if you missed the discourse on wahhabism for years as if somehow it never existed? How curious. I just love the fake heart felt vindication of an already acknowledged problem. There was a discourse going on in the Green party in Austria, sure. And you know what the consequences of that were? Well, the one guy got fired, and the other guy has lost most support on almost all topics from the party leadership. Discussion is allowed. Just do it silently. We have a party led by a straight up Nazi at 35% in polls in Austria, social democrats are considering to partner up with them, right-wing extremists have been protesting for months now. I am sorry, but my country has a much bigger problem than wahabism, but the very openly lived denial on discussions on such topics, however minor they are in the grand scheme of things, might turn my country into a Nazi-vasall of Putin. ?? For real? They want to work with the FPÖ? By the way, you have nothing viable at the left of social democrats, right? They are considering it. SPÖ broke coalition with FPÖ in 1986 when they turned right, which forced them to partner up with the conservatives again and again, while conservatives had the strategical advantage to play with the FPÖ-option. There is a regional SPÖ-FPÖ cooperation in Burgenland nowadays and the party has initiated internal talks about social democratic demands towards any partner. It's not clear what that means, but there are forces within SPÖ that want to partner up with FPÖ and it seems to be that the demands are shaped in a way that would definitely exclude conservatives. And the base isn't outraged about that? What do those two parties even share? Or maybe you have some “culture of compromise” in Austria that we don't have in France. You don't have compromise in France? Just take a look at the last regional elections...right and left grouping together just to keep LePen away was pathetic and really showed how the two main parties do not have solid basis anymore. They shift form just to keep themselves alive.
I hope they will again. The last thing France needs is Le Pen in government. A woman of 100 complaints and 0 actual remedies to fix anything. Furthermore just like in other countries it will give an excuse for racism, xenophobia, anti-Europe, and homophobia to rise.
Finding those papers after making such a clean escape seems extremely.. planted basically. The papers do probably belong to an extremist but unless there is a siting of him it could just be a decoy- either by the perpatrator or the authorities to pretend they have a lead.
|
On December 22 2016 20:47 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:17 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 08:06 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:50 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 07:41 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why have you three (big J reaps bardtown, alway your three together) been talking in your own own little echo chamber as if you missed the discourse on wahhabism for years as if somehow it never existed? How curious. I just love the fake heart felt vindication of an already acknowledged problem. There was a discourse going on in the Green party in Austria, sure. And you know what the consequences of that were? Well, the one guy got fired, and the other guy has lost most support on almost all topics from the party leadership. Discussion is allowed. Just do it silently. We have a party led by a straight up Nazi at 35% in polls in Austria, social democrats are considering to partner up with them, right-wing extremists have been protesting for months now. I am sorry, but my country has a much bigger problem than wahabism, but the very openly lived denial on discussions on such topics, however minor they are in the grand scheme of things, might turn my country into a Nazi-vasall of Putin. ?? For real? They want to work with the FPÖ? By the way, you have nothing viable at the left of social democrats, right? They are considering it. SPÖ broke coalition with FPÖ in 1986 when they turned right, which forced them to partner up with the conservatives again and again, while conservatives had the strategical advantage to play with the FPÖ-option. There is a regional SPÖ-FPÖ cooperation in Burgenland nowadays and the party has initiated internal talks about social democratic demands towards any partner. It's not clear what that means, but there are forces within SPÖ that want to partner up with FPÖ and it seems to be that the demands are shaped in a way that would definitely exclude conservatives. And the base isn't outraged about that? What do those two parties even share? Or maybe you have some “culture of compromise” in Austria that we don't have in France. You don't have compromise in France? Just take a look at the last regional elections...right and left grouping together just to keep LePen away was pathetic and really showed how the two main parties do not have solid basis anymore. They shift form just to keep themselves alive.
That's not a compromise, in two regions the PS decided to withdraw its candidate because it had no chance to be elected, but could take enough points from the UMP/LR one so that the FN candidate would win. From memory this withdrawal was decided unilaterally, from the top (in a third region, the PS candidate actually refused to withdraw and was threatened by the party lol), without any concertation/negotiation with the UMP/LR.
The UMP/LR still has a solid basis, it's the PS which is completely collapsing. They lost 85% of their militants in a decade, lost all intermediary elections, are now polling fifth in the presidential election (with the weakest score since 1969) and might lose a 45 years old hegemony over the left. They might end up like the Greek PASOK.
|
On December 22 2016 21:12 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 20:47 SoSexy wrote:On December 22 2016 08:17 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 08:06 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:50 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 07:41 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why have you three (big J reaps bardtown, alway your three together) been talking in your own own little echo chamber as if you missed the discourse on wahhabism for years as if somehow it never existed? How curious. I just love the fake heart felt vindication of an already acknowledged problem. There was a discourse going on in the Green party in Austria, sure. And you know what the consequences of that were? Well, the one guy got fired, and the other guy has lost most support on almost all topics from the party leadership. Discussion is allowed. Just do it silently. We have a party led by a straight up Nazi at 35% in polls in Austria, social democrats are considering to partner up with them, right-wing extremists have been protesting for months now. I am sorry, but my country has a much bigger problem than wahabism, but the very openly lived denial on discussions on such topics, however minor they are in the grand scheme of things, might turn my country into a Nazi-vasall of Putin. ?? For real? They want to work with the FPÖ? By the way, you have nothing viable at the left of social democrats, right? They are considering it. SPÖ broke coalition with FPÖ in 1986 when they turned right, which forced them to partner up with the conservatives again and again, while conservatives had the strategical advantage to play with the FPÖ-option. There is a regional SPÖ-FPÖ cooperation in Burgenland nowadays and the party has initiated internal talks about social democratic demands towards any partner. It's not clear what that means, but there are forces within SPÖ that want to partner up with FPÖ and it seems to be that the demands are shaped in a way that would definitely exclude conservatives. And the base isn't outraged about that? What do those two parties even share? Or maybe you have some “culture of compromise” in Austria that we don't have in France. You don't have compromise in France? Just take a look at the last regional elections...right and left grouping together just to keep LePen away was pathetic and really showed how the two main parties do not have solid basis anymore. They shift form just to keep themselves alive. I hope they will again. The last thing France needs is Le Pen in government. A woman of 100 complaints and 0 actual remedies to fix anything. Furthermore just like in other countries it will give an excuse for racism, xenophobia, anti-Europe, and homophobia to rise. Finding those papers after making such a clean escape seems extremely.. planted basically. The papers do probably belong to an extremist but unless there is a siting of him it could just be a decoy- either by the perpatrator or the authorities to pretend they have a lead.
How did they plant the finger prints too? Planting a fake passport I believe is well within the capabilities of a terrorist, but faking fingerprints? That's some TV level spy stuff. At the very least, Amri was in the truck at some point.
|
On December 22 2016 22:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 21:12 MyTHicaL wrote:On December 22 2016 20:47 SoSexy wrote:On December 22 2016 08:17 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 08:06 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:50 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 07:41 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why have you three (big J reaps bardtown, alway your three together) been talking in your own own little echo chamber as if you missed the discourse on wahhabism for years as if somehow it never existed? How curious. I just love the fake heart felt vindication of an already acknowledged problem. There was a discourse going on in the Green party in Austria, sure. And you know what the consequences of that were? Well, the one guy got fired, and the other guy has lost most support on almost all topics from the party leadership. Discussion is allowed. Just do it silently. We have a party led by a straight up Nazi at 35% in polls in Austria, social democrats are considering to partner up with them, right-wing extremists have been protesting for months now. I am sorry, but my country has a much bigger problem than wahabism, but the very openly lived denial on discussions on such topics, however minor they are in the grand scheme of things, might turn my country into a Nazi-vasall of Putin. ?? For real? They want to work with the FPÖ? By the way, you have nothing viable at the left of social democrats, right? They are considering it. SPÖ broke coalition with FPÖ in 1986 when they turned right, which forced them to partner up with the conservatives again and again, while conservatives had the strategical advantage to play with the FPÖ-option. There is a regional SPÖ-FPÖ cooperation in Burgenland nowadays and the party has initiated internal talks about social democratic demands towards any partner. It's not clear what that means, but there are forces within SPÖ that want to partner up with FPÖ and it seems to be that the demands are shaped in a way that would definitely exclude conservatives. And the base isn't outraged about that? What do those two parties even share? Or maybe you have some “culture of compromise” in Austria that we don't have in France. You don't have compromise in France? Just take a look at the last regional elections...right and left grouping together just to keep LePen away was pathetic and really showed how the two main parties do not have solid basis anymore. They shift form just to keep themselves alive. I hope they will again. The last thing France needs is Le Pen in government. A woman of 100 complaints and 0 actual remedies to fix anything. Furthermore just like in other countries it will give an excuse for racism, xenophobia, anti-Europe, and homophobia to rise. Finding those papers after making such a clean escape seems extremely.. planted basically. The papers do probably belong to an extremist but unless there is a siting of him it could just be a decoy- either by the perpatrator or the authorities to pretend they have a lead. How did they plant the finger prints too? Planting a fake passport I believe is well within the capabilities of a terrorist, but faking fingerprints? That's some TV level spy stuff. At the very least, Amri was in the truck at some point.
You can see the wierd leaps people make just in this thread.
How did someone escape during the confusion of a truck crash. How do they not know where he is when he is hiding ect.
People watch to many spy movies.
|
On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them.
there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned
when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos
|
On December 22 2016 23:34 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them. there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos
Yeah, except we can't just “ban religion” or force non-belief...
|
On December 22 2016 23:38 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 23:34 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them. there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos Yeah, except we can't just “ban religion” or force non-belief...
Why? Isn't that the logical solution? I mean, in a modern society who will ever belive in such religion fairy-tales? Beliving in something that does not exist and forcing others to belive/obey is not how smart bilogical species evolve i'd say.
Or, if someone from middle east coming to a historically different europe with different religion, he MUST put his own religion somewhere very deep, that's not his home or motherland, dictating islam somewhere it does not even belong is very arrogant and ignorant.
|
Well, that's what communists tried and it doesn't look like they were very successful, does it? Rather the opposite in many cases if you look at Poland for example who due to the massive anti-liberal oppression elements of the left have flipped very hard to the right now, embracing those elements that gave them freedom from the dictatorship.
Humans are liberal at heart, they don't want to be forced against what they want. If you have a point that you deem reasonable it can only be established by a process that is reasonable. The point I was making is considered reasonable within our society, because left-wingers have done the same with European religions. Right-wingers now twist that leftist achievment to encourage a reactionary "cultural clash"-process to divide us by religion, rather than liberalizing backwards forces that immigrated into our society to put them on equal terms.
|
On December 22 2016 23:47 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 23:38 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 23:34 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them. there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos Yeah, except we can't just “ban religion” or force non-belief... Why? Isn't that the logical solution? I mean, in a modern society who will ever belive in such religion fairy-tales? Beliving in something that does not exist and forcing others to belive/obey is not how smart bilogical species evolve i'd say. Or, if someone from middle east coming to a historically different europe with different religion, he MUST put his own religion somewhere very deep, that's not his home or motherland, dictating islam somewhere it does not even belong is very arrogant and ignorant.
As an atheist i understand what you're trying to say and i agree with some of your points but TheDwf is right, you cant just force people to stop their religion, that will simply not end well. If you ask me the best way to do is through better education, especially in the more poor country's, take me for example i am one of the biggest non believers i know yet if i was born in a third world country with access to little to no education then i would probably believe in god too because i wouldn't know any better.
The key is to try and fight poverty in the poorer country's and get them access to better education and things like the internet, from that alone the number of religious people would decrease.
As for religious people living in the first world well.. i cant seem to find many excuses for that apart from being bought up by strict religious parents but i'm not sure what you can do about it apart from what i said above.
|
On December 22 2016 23:47 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 23:38 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 23:34 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them. there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos Yeah, except we can't just “ban religion” or force non-belief... Why? Isn't that the logical solution? I mean, in a modern society who will ever belive in such religion fairy-tales? Beliving in something that does not exist and forcing others to belive/obey is not how smart bilogical species evolve i'd say.
Why? Well, because no one ever invented a way to magically erase beliefs/religion from the minds of millions of people. I think you're also overlooking the fact that us atheists/non-believers are globally a minority. In Europe the vast majority of people are still religious, even if observance varies. It takes decades or even centuries for religion to weaken/collapse, and doing it in an authoritarian way doesn't even work.
|
On December 23 2016 00:11 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 23:47 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On December 22 2016 23:38 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2016 23:34 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On December 22 2016 06:22 Big J wrote:On December 22 2016 05:23 MyTHicaL wrote:
As for people blaming relligion; it completely depends but it is the same liberal attitude applied to everyone, it's for that reason that you see neo-nazi parades running around Dover, England. Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If so what limits and who gets to subjectively decide on each specific case? Inciting violence is obviously not in everyone's best interest but words can be twisted if for example the orator is simply asking people to march/manifest. It's an extremely difficult balance to find. Obviously it is a difficult balance, yet, for example in my view it is intolerable how laissez-faire we are with controlling Imams. It is a very delicate profession (just like any other religious leader who holds great power over spiritual people) and it should not be left to be taught by "whoever some Saudi-Arabian institute sends to us and pays for". There need to be standards, there needs to be a responsibility for when someone preaches hatred and the state and the public need to have easy access to all activities and obviously the mosques have to accept all the liberal rights of society just as all other churches should. There cannot be a dispute about what you wear to a mosque when it is not perceived offensive in any other place of the society. People have fought long and hard so that European churches accepted (most) liberal standards and the same has to be expected from Islam. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about parallel statesque organizations within a state, dubious financing, other states' influence and all of that stuff that is going on under the label "religious freedom". Fuck that, I'm not interested in seeing religious fanatics waving a cross being elected because the left doesn't have the guts to explain the difference between being liberal towards those in need and being rigorous towards breeding islamic right-winged extremists out of them. there must be the only standart - no religion at all, since we don't have a reason to clash on religion purpose - there will be lesser incidents eventually, it has to banned when stupid religion ideas rules the majority that's chaos Yeah, except we can't just “ban religion” or force non-belief... Why? Isn't that the logical solution? I mean, in a modern society who will ever belive in such religion fairy-tales? Beliving in something that does not exist and forcing others to belive/obey is not how smart bilogical species evolve i'd say. Or, if someone from middle east coming to a historically different europe with different religion, he MUST put his own religion somewhere very deep, that's not his home or motherland, dictating islam somewhere it does not even belong is very arrogant and ignorant. As an atheist i understand what you're trying to say and i agree with some of your points but TheDwf is right, you cant just force people to stop their religion, that will simply not end well. If you ask me the best way to do is through better education, especially in the more poor country's, take me for example i am one of the biggest non believers i know yet if i was born in a third world country with access to little to no education then i would probably believe in god too because i wouldn't know any better. The key is to try and fight poverty in the poorer country's and get them access to better education and things like the internet, from that alone the number of religious people would decrease. As for religious people living in the first world well.. i cant seem to find many excuses for that apart from being bought up by strict religious parents but i'm not sure what you can do about it apart from what i said above.
So considering all these, time and education is the only solution. The problem is that we can hardly affect education systems even in our own counties, not even mentioning 3rd world countries all over the planet.
And once again, instead of trying to help people in their homelands we're letting refugees in a better countries where they feel different and free to do any dirty things, that does not sound like a solution after all.
|
The liberal left does not have solutions - they bathe in hypocrisy. For example, they refuse to set up refugees camp near Syria and to help people there, but if a boat full of migrants sinks they will send 3 ships to collect the relict and then do a state funeral with all the politicians crying, saying 'no more' and lighting every monument.
Europe does not seem active - it is amazing at crying and showing despair but they take no measures. It is the equivalent of a CEO firing an employee without reasons - the next morning he sees him in front of his office, begging for money. He will feel heartmoved and give him some, therefore looking charitable - but all of this could have simply be prevented by not firing him.
|
On December 23 2016 00:57 SoSexy wrote:
The liberal left does not have solutions - they bathe in hypocrisy. For example, they refuse to set up refugees camp near Syria and to help people there, but if a boat full of migrants sinks they will send 3 ships to collect the relict and then do a state funeral with all the politicians crying, saying 'no more' and lighting every monument.
Europe does not seem active - it is amazing at crying and showing despair but they take no measures. It is the equivalent of a CEO firing an employee without reasons - the next morning he sees him in front of his office, begging for money. He will feel heartmoved and give him some, therefore looking charitable - but all of this could have simply be prevented by not firing him.
What on earth are you talking about? The "liberal left" (not quite sure who you're talking about in such an incredibly broad generalization) doesn't refuse to set up refugee camps near Syria. In case you hadn't noticed, there's rather a lot of them there already. And yes, given the choice between people drowning and people being saved and taken to Lampedusa or Lesbos, the former sounds like an infinitely better solution. Of course, I think they should be shipped back to Turkey/Lybia/wherever they got on the boat, but Turkey and Lybia don't want them either.
|
On December 23 2016 01:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 00:57 SoSexy wrote:
The liberal left does not have solutions - they bathe in hypocrisy. For example, they refuse to set up refugees camp near Syria and to help people there, but if a boat full of migrants sinks they will send 3 ships to collect the relict and then do a state funeral with all the politicians crying, saying 'no more' and lighting every monument.
Europe does not seem active - it is amazing at crying and showing despair but they take no measures. It is the equivalent of a CEO firing an employee without reasons - the next morning he sees him in front of his office, begging for money. He will feel heartmoved and give him some, therefore looking charitable - but all of this could have simply be prevented by not firing him. What on earth are you talking about? The "liberal left" (not quite sure who you're talking about in such an incredibly broad generalization) doesn't refuse to set up refugee camps near Syria. In case you hadn't noticed, there's rather a lot of them there already. And yes, given the choice between people drowning and people being saved and taken to Lampedusa or Lesbos, the former sounds like an infinitely better solution. Of course, I think they should be shipped back to Turkey/Lybia/wherever they got on the boat, but Turkey and Lybia don't want them either.
Syrian conflict started in 2011. Name me one solid thing that the EU did in order to stop this conflict. The rest of your post is, again, no solutions. Turkey and Lybia don't want them back, so what do you think is the reasonable answer?
1) Help them in their countries, spend money there rather than on detention center in your own country. Patrol the seas in order not to let people leave - you can be as humanitarian as you want, but the whole world can't move to EU. It's a matter of numbers.
2) (italian example) going with your ships up to 20 km the coast of lybia to pick people up, bring them to your country without knowing what they are gonna do there?
|
I didn'y realise it was up to the EU to stop the Syrian Conflict. Would you rather that EU, a collection of entities, had the political unity and inclination to do as Russia and Iran does?
Also that nebulous "liberal left" as your target. Do people really think like this? To randomly blame a non-defined group as a cause of your troubles? Or are you just trying to be provocative?
|
On December 23 2016 01:10 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 01:01 Acrofales wrote:On December 23 2016 00:57 SoSexy wrote:
The liberal left does not have solutions - they bathe in hypocrisy. For example, they refuse to set up refugees camp near Syria and to help people there, but if a boat full of migrants sinks they will send 3 ships to collect the relict and then do a state funeral with all the politicians crying, saying 'no more' and lighting every monument.
Europe does not seem active - it is amazing at crying and showing despair but they take no measures. It is the equivalent of a CEO firing an employee without reasons - the next morning he sees him in front of his office, begging for money. He will feel heartmoved and give him some, therefore looking charitable - but all of this could have simply be prevented by not firing him. What on earth are you talking about? The "liberal left" (not quite sure who you're talking about in such an incredibly broad generalization) doesn't refuse to set up refugee camps near Syria. In case you hadn't noticed, there's rather a lot of them there already. And yes, given the choice between people drowning and people being saved and taken to Lampedusa or Lesbos, the former sounds like an infinitely better solution. Of course, I think they should be shipped back to Turkey/Lybia/wherever they got on the boat, but Turkey and Lybia don't want them either. Syrian conflict started in 2011. Name me one solid thing that the EU did in order to stop this conflict. The rest of your post is, again, no solutions. Turkey and Lybia don't want them back, so what do you think is the reasonable answer? 1) Help them in their countries, spend money there rather than on detention center in your own country. Patrol the seas in order not to let people leave - you can be as humanitarian as you want, but the whole world can't move to EU. It's a matter of numbers. 2) (italian example) going with your ships up to 20 km the coast of lybia to pick people up, bring them to your country without knowing what they are gonna do there?
Exactly, it's a matter of numbers how many you can reasonably integrate. That number has not been reached in most countries, since they are taking 0. If they take 0, they should come up with a solution, and it better be one that is not forced upon another European country like Greecy, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria which happen to be boarder countries.
I am sorry, right-wingers have to decide what they want:
Fully sovereign EU-countries? Well then they have to deal with other EU-countries politics, even if it is Merkel saying "Germany can do it", fully knowing that Germany actually wouldn't have to take any refugees given the Dublin contracts.
Independence from outsider nations? Well, then they can't demand anything to be done in an outsider country, because regardless how you do it, ultimately it's up to those other nations whether they send them to your boarders.
No interventionism? Well, then you have to deal with whatever geopolitics russia and the US are cooking up.
If you want to build a camp in Italy, build a camp in Italy. But don't demand that Greece builds one if you don't want a centralized European process that can overrule countries in such matters.
|
Doesn't the left do the same with neoliberalism? When I asked for a definition I got a different one from everyone who responded. The same when people blame the elites. Blaming non or poorly defined groups happens all the time.
|
It's not a poorly defined group. According to most right-wingers, "liberal left" means everything that's more left wing than them and that includes center right and christian democrat parties. You can argue that the term is too general but I think it's useful, sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between modern center right and left wing parties. Their rhetoric may be different but their policies are often very similar.
|
On December 23 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the left do the same with neoliberalism? When I asked for a definition I got a different one from everyone who responded.
Ask right-wingers their definition of socialism, you will have the same results... It describes a set of ideas and policies; so if there's a range of things, it is only natural that different people focus on different aspects.
Funnily enough, after decades of denying that neoliberalism exists, the IMF itself started talking about the notion... (There's even a definition in the introduction if you want an additional one!)
|
On December 23 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the left do the same with neoliberalism? When I asked for a definition I got a different one from everyone who responded. The same when people blame the elites. Blaming non or poorly defined groups happens all the time.
There are thousands of macro-ecnomic theories. Neoliberalism vs Keynesianism is just a typical categorization roughly into two movements. No economist claims to hold "the truth" to describing all the details of the social human interaction process that we call "economy". Though I often get the feeling that neoliberals do exactly that when discrediting Keynesian-demand based and often "only" empirically proven theories in ways that make it look like only strictly mathermatical supply-based theories matter, regardless how simplified of a view on human behaviour they require.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with neoliberalism and monetarism when you know how and when to use those measures from my point of view. But talking about controlling a free market-economy is fundamentally different from demanding government actions such as setting up a camp, which is a simple action that is under full control of the government, other than economic forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
